Which version of Encumbrance works best for you:

1. Measure every last gram on the character.

2. provided a limited number of "carrying slots" plus calculating armor weight and weight from gold carried?

3. Armor weight and coins carried only?

4. Only worry about armor?

5. Only worry about carried treasure?

6. No encumbrance rules whatsoever?

RPGPundit

Don't really worry about encumbrance rules at all as long as the people playing are mature enough to be realistic in what they are carrying.  But that does depend on the game somewhat.

In a survival horror game where what you are specifically carrying is a huge part of the game then what and how much of what you are carrying becomes much more important and measured.

6. Being piled down with equipment yet moving like quicksilver is funnier and I can't be bothered with petty maths.

why are you so obsessed with the weight of treasure do you only play RPGs where the PCs need to run away from things carrying large bags of gold?

Depends.

Slots are good becuase they are easy. but I certainly wouldn't worry about slots for magic rings and the like.

Weight of stuf fis good . Not sure why everyting has to be converted to equiv weigh in GPs that seems daft to me.

The old D&D enc tbles were good.

I would like to see armour tied to heat, exhaustion and ease of taking a piss as well as just weight though

Depends on the game. If I'm going to bother with encumbrance, then it's probably a high simulation game where rations are tracked and the survival skill is frequently used to live off the land. If I'm not bothering with tracking food and just want a game of kill the monsters, then I don't really care about encumbrance. I've played in far more games that don't bother with encumbrance than those who have.

Encumbrance is more than weight.  A fine crystal chandelier worth 1000 GP might not weigh but 50lbs but have an "encumbrance" of well over 500lbs, just based on bulk and how careful you have to be with it.  Likewise a hollow gold statue, rolled up fine carpet, etc.

I'm a mean old jerk of a DM and I make characters consider what they're carrying first.  Some people at the table (Richard I'm looking at you) try to handwave it but no, you're not carrying four swords, the platemail you're wearing, a couple of maces, all the various bits and pieces adventurers carry and a "backup" suit of chainmail stuffed in your pack and still moving at 9".

Ain't.  Happenin'.

Now I realize I'm going to get dogpiled by a bunch of mumbling dickholes who don't like me, or don't like AD&D or whatever, but fuck all y'all.

Quote from: ptingler;462683Depends on the game. If I'm going to bother with encumbrance, then it's probably a high simulation game where rations are tracked and the survival skill is frequently used to live off the land. If I'm not bothering with tracking food and just want a game of kill the monsters, then I don't really care about encumbrance. I've played in far more games that don't bother with encumbrance than those who have.

This is my perspective on the topic in a nutshell.  Definitely depends on what's important the game at hand.

If I'm running a dungeoncrawl game, I track everything behind the screen using a spreadsheet to update weight tallies and calculate movement, etc.

If I'm running a modern PI game, such an exacting account of what's being carried and where isn't important.  In this case I eyeball it and make a judgement call.

Quote from: RPGPundit;462671Which version of Encumbrance works best for you:

1. Measure every last gram on the character.

2. provided a limited number of "carrying slots" plus calculating armor weight and weight from gold carried?

3. Armor weight and coins carried only?

4. Only worry about armor?

5. Only worry about carried treasure?

6. No encumbrance rules whatsoever?

RPGPundit

7. Common sense, a.k.a. don't take the mick.

With the corollary that if you seriously think you can walk around carrying a longbow and a pole-arm, or even a long-ish spear, plus a staff and some javelins, plus a quiver full of arrows, while fighting with a sword and shield, get out of town. Even the concept of tucking a spear into your belt while you fight with a sword and shield is just bizarre. It would be swinging around everywhere and getting in your way, or if strapped to your body at two points, would stop you moving properly. The things people seem to think they can get away with in some of these hack-n-slash games are just comedy.

(The problem is only 30% weight and 70% being able to stow the items correctly around your body so they don't get in your way. For instance, recently walking about town carrying a small but heavyish suitcase in one hand and a litre bottle of water and book in the other, I was very grateful to be able to give the book to my friend just so I could switch hands with the suitcase more easily when my arm got tired. The book didn't weigh much and it wasn't large but I had nowhere to carry it and it was getting in my way. How do you even begin to "store" a spear on your body if you're crawling around in caves and over walls and stuff? It can't be done.)

To me, it depends what kind of game I'm playing.  I haven't for a while played a fantasy game where the PCs were homeless wanderers carting around all their worldly possessions including heavy piles of coins.  

Most of my games, we don't keep detailed equipment lists - because the PCs are frequently changing what they're carrying and wearing with the circumstances.  i.e. One scene they might be staking out a place in their car with binoculars and take-out food, and the next scene they're wearing all black with crowbars breaking into a house.  So the most common for me is "Armor only".  

The times when I have detailed equipment include some post-apocalyptic survival scenarios, characters trapped in another world (kids from the real world find themselves in a fantasy world), or operations behind enemy lines (paratroopers in Normandy).  In these cases, I might keep track of total weight.

Depends somewhat on the game -- I mean if it's about needing to be mobile and needing to choose between kit you can carry (Fallout, maybe) then I want something to make that tension mechanical.

Generally, though, no thanks. Doesn't contain any intrinsic fun for me.

Quote from: Omnifray;4626957. Common sense, a.k.a. don't take the mick.

I like this one too, though it can deteriorate into
8. Carry whatever you feel like, calculate encumberance and discover you can't move just before you need to run away.

Next favourite is #2, the can carry X big items (dragon warriors).

Fixed penalties for armor, full back packs, and so on.  Bulk rules for weapons making bigger ones more unwieldly but generally not more encumbering.  Pikes and really big stuff being the exception of course.

I'm a Rolemaster guy but totalling loadouts is more book keeping than I usually want to do.

Quote from: Omnifray;4626957. Common sense, a.k.a. don't take the mick.

This is my preferred method.

After the power of creation, the second most important power of the GM is veto. "No, don't be stupid," are words often spoken at the game table.

Quote from: ptingler;462683Depends on the game. If I'm going to bother with encumbrance, then it's probably a high simulation game where rations are tracked and the survival skill is frequently used to live off the land. If I'm not bothering with tracking food and just want a game of kill the monsters, then I don't really care about encumbrance. I've played in far more games that don't bother with encumbrance than those who have.

Pretty much the same. Except I'd add, I enjoyed the game more with encumbrance rules. Just so few tables really cared. But then I don't really get off on games of 'kill the monsters' that much either. More of an explorer, like Dora!